Off Ramp Abuse Violation in CA

[MartyInCA]

What is the name of your state? California

I received a CVC 21461a citation from a CHP officer while returning onto the freeway after using the off ramp of the same exit. The lane that I was in was marked with left or right arrows, but there is no sign or marking indicating no through traffic. The lane that I was in is not bounded by solid lines. It's my understanding that CVC 21461a is the disregard of posted signs, but I did not disregard any posted regulation. Is there any special regulation regarding off ramp abuse?

I have no plans on pleading guilty, but I would love to be able to successfully fight this citation. I will pay the fine and attend traffic school if found guilty. Beyond the obvious reasons to fight, my motivation to fight this citation is to protest the lay in wait methods used by the citing CHP officer.

Any advice would be helpful.

 

[Zigner]

So, in the lane you were in, the markings indicated Left Turn or Right Turn, but no arrow indicated you were allowed to go straight. Is that correct?

The arrows told you what you were allowed to do...

 

[VeronicaLodge]

why did you leave the highway only to re-enter it? did you exit by mistake or were you trying to bypass traffic?

 

[MartyInCA]

Thanks for the reply.

My Google search confirms my suspicions. I found that the text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must have been violated for you to be guilty of violating 21461(a). I feel comfortable defending against the citing officer not indicating the exact code.

 

[MartyInCA]

why did you leave the highway only to re-enter it? did you exit by mistake or were you trying to bypass traffic?

It was a mistake officer. I doubt that it would have mattered if it was a mistake.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

im not gonna write you a ticket, im asking for a truthful fact. so what was really going on???

 

[MartyInCA]

im not gonna write you a ticket, im asking for a truthful fact. so what was really going on???

You didn't pick up on the sarcastic wink? I keep forgetting how humor doesn't translate on these forums. Everybody has their defenses up. Anyway, I was bypassing traffic. On a side note, when navigating to my home, my GPS did tell me to go back onto the on ramp.

Like I said before, I am guilty and have no problem admitting it. I just want to save some cash. I would also like to get on my soap box against cops lying in wait for a citation that is in no way a safety violation. While on the freeway just prior to my citation, I was tailgated, cut off and passed by speeders. I was stopped by an officer on foot.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

I did, I just don't like to assume so I wanted you to tell me! ha, now I'm writing you a ticket SUCKA.... kidding.

 

[Zigner]

Your understanding of the code you are charged with violating is incorrect. Good luck

 

[JIMinCA]

Thanks for the reply.

My Google search confirms my suspicions. I found that the text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must have been violated for you to be guilty of violating 21461(a). I feel comfortable defending against the citing officer not indicating the exact code.

I didn't get that at all.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Thanks for the reply.

My Google search confirms my suspicions. I found that the text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must have been violated for you to be guilty of violating 21461(a). I feel comfortable defending against the citing officer not indicating the exact code.

So what may happen is the officer writes you another ticket for another offense and says, "Judge, I was trying to cut the guy a break by only citing one violation."

 

[MartyInCA]

So what may happen is the officer writes you another ticket for another offense and says, "Judge, I was trying to cut the guy a break by only citing one violation."

Sorry, but thankfully it doesn't work that way. The fact is that the officer used an umbrella code that covers the infraction that I am guilty of. This umbrella code cannot be used without a qualifying, more specific code. I know it's a technicality, but I can live with that.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, but thankfully it doesn't work that way. The fact is that the officer used an umbrella code that covers the infraction that I am guilty of. This umbrella code cannot be used without a qualifying, more specific code. I know it's a technicality, but I can live with that.

Oh brother. What makes you think you can't be found guilty of the code you were charged with?
Give some cites. Or don't - you seem to have it well under control

 

[CdwJava]

Sorry, but thankfully it doesn't work that way. The fact is that the officer used an umbrella code that covers the infraction that I am guilty of. This umbrella code cannot be used without a qualifying, more specific code. I know it's a technicality, but I can live with that.

Uh ... what?

How very odd ... I thought it was pretty specific and the section says NOTHING about an underlying code or secondary violation:

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey
a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation
approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or
maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate
and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic
ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic
ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by
lawful authority of a public body or official.​

Please identify for me the portion of that section saying another violation must be present.

There are arguments that might be made in your defense, but this "qualifying" code bit ain't one of them.

- Carl

 

[MartyInCA]

Uh ... what?

There are arguments that might be made in your defense, but this "qualifying" code bit ain't one of them.

- Carl

Please elaborate.